[arcura]

paraclete,
Sorry, but Yes Jesus is a rock and so IS Peter because Jesus said so.
He said that Peter is the Rock on which Jesus would build His Church.
I believe Jesus.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[450donn]

galveston,
Perhaps you did not know that the Pope is considered to be the greatest SERVANT in the Catholic Church.
As has been said, He who serves most leads best.
In Jesus time on earth He was the greatest servant AND the best leader. He still is.
The Pope is Christs vicar on this planet.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

And what did Jesus say about the Pharisees and leaders of the day?
They proclaimed exactly the same thing about themselves. But Jesus had some very harsh words to them about their hypocrisy.

[galveston]

Is no one bold enough to answer my 16 articles of faith as posted earlier?

I think Catholics will find much to agree with there.

[arcura]

450donn,
I believe that is was Jesus who TOLD His disciples that the best leader is the best servant.
At least that is what my bibles say.

Galbveston,
I'll need to find them and take a look see.
Thanks,
Fred

[JoeT777]

The reason no progress is made is that the inherent proposition is based on a false intrepretation of Scripture attempting to give preeminence to one group. Scripture clearly teaches, (Paul,) that the arguement about who's teaching is better is a wrong argument

There is no 'argument' from me over who is right and who is wrong. At least I never took that position. What I did show was proof based on Catholic doctrine. In matters regarding faith and morals I take this as objective truth - like in any science you can not argue with what is axiomatic. This, no doubt, sounds arrogant but my position isn't negotiable, nor do I view a faith worth having if it were negotiable.

JoeT

[JoeT777]

Is no one bold enought to answer my 16 articles of faith as posted earlier?

I think Catholics will find much to agree with there.

I've got 10(?) objections or disagreements. I took out the ones I agreed with at least in a general sense.

I. I can't agree with this: the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct is scripture. 2 Timothy 3:15-17; I Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1;21
ii. Our sinless life (if I can change this to holy life) no such thing as a sinless life unless you're baptize at the point of death.
iv. His substitutionary work on the cross (don't know what this means)
vi. His exhalation to the right hand of God (Not sure what's meant)
III. I disagree with this: The fall of Man as in 'totally depraved – i.e. per Luther's definition.
V. I can agree with this if ordinances is in reference to sacraments and includes all seven Catholic sacraments: The Ordinances of Holy Communion and water baptism
VI. I don't hold to this: we are baptized in the name of God, Son and Holy Spirit – the Holy Spirit doesn't normally possess body and soul: The Baptism in the Holy Ghost for every believer
VII. This is true in the sense of what is written in scripture, but not necessarily true in every believer in every time: The INITIAL evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost is speaking in unknown tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.
VIII. I disagree if this is 'once saved always saved' or 'I can't sin after being saved' :Sanctification of the saved believer from a life of sin to a life of righteousness (a process of time by heeding the Word and being led by the Holy Ghost)
IX. The Catholic Church is the corporate body of Christ - not sure what is meant about 'habitation':The Church is the corporate Body of Christ, habitation of God through the Spirit.
XI. Not normal: Healing for the human body provided in the Atonement.
XIII. Wholly disagree: The Millennial reign of Christ

[JoeT777]

And what did Jesus say about the Pharisees and leaders of the day?
They proclaimed exactly the same thing about them selves. But Jesus had some very harsh words to them about their hypocrisy.

No they didn't!

[arcura]

Joet,
Yes, I do agree with you. They did not!!
It was Jesus who said to his followers that then one who serves most serves best.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[TUT317]

Peter is not the Rock, Jesus Christ is the Rock, in fact Jesus used the term pebble at that time to describe Peter and his wrong attitude, a stumbling block, and this particular misintrepretation is still a stumbling block to Christians two thousand years later.

Hello paraclete,

I wasn't trying to use any proposition to establish a position. e.g.. "Peter is the rock...." In fact I am not even sure I've got the quote right. It was just an example off the top of my head. I decided upon this example because it can be established historically, i.e.. Peter was a historical character who was/was not regarded as a rock.

I think it is these types of propositions which progress can be made. Not everyone is going to agree, but by turning complex propositions into more basic subject/ predicate propositions, progress is possible, especially if we do this in light of historical facts.

To be honest I haven't given this area much consideration so I have not developed a view one way or the other, but it would be an interesting exercise.

I will try to highlight my argument using a less quarrelsome example.The example I will use should highlight what I am getting at.

If I were to put forward the point of view that, "Richard Nixon was a bad president" I believe that we could reach some type of consensus on the issue. Why is this possible? Firstly, I think that we could establish a definition as to what is entailed by the term," bad president".

Once we have established this we can see if Nixon meets the criteria of a bad president. If we are still unable to agree then we can consult the historical records, e.g.. Tapes, diaries, accounts given by witnesses etc, etc. When we are dealing with physical facts then progress is possible.

But what about about non-physical things? Can we come up with some type of agreement. As stated in my previous post I think the answer is no.Why? Because propositions involving such things as the Trinity cannot be broken down into more basic propositions which can then be analyzed in light of physical facts.

Here is an example of why it is very difficult agree about the nature of non-physical things

If I were to say," Hamlet was a left-wing anti monarchist". Then such a statement can be regarded as meaningless because Hamlet doesn't exist. He is only a character in a play. But there is a problem saying that he doesn't exist. If he doesn't exist then why do people have a idea of who he is? Why is he mentioned in many publications? Why do people borrow famous quotes from a non existent prince of Denmark? For example Hamlet said," There is something rotten in the state of Denmark".

Hamlet does exist but not in the same way as you or I exist. He has a special category of existence. I cannot prove that Hamlet is a left-wing anti monarchist. I can go through the play with a fine tooth combe and not find any evidence. Even if I could find something it would do my case no good because I have nothing historical to compare it with.

I cannot go to the F.B.I. and investigate Hamlet's left- wing associates.
I cannot ask his relations about his political leanings. There is of course no historical record of this type.

In the end these types of special category propositions should not be broken down into basic types because it is a pointless exercise. We cannot prove anything by referring to physical evidence.All we can do is refer to other quotes and this seems to get us little progress.

This was the point I was trying to make in my previous post.

[paraclete]

There is no ‘argument’ from me over who is right and who is wrong. At least I never took that position. What I did show was proof based on Catholic doctrine. In matters regarding faith and morals I take this as objective truth - like in any science you can not argue with what is axiomatic. This, no doubt, sounds arrogant but my position isn’t negotiable, nor do I view a faith worth having if it were negotiable.

JoeT

Joe you need to understand Catholic doctrine doesn't have the same authunticity as Scripture. It might be based on Scripture and it might be based on opinion.; Catholic doctrine holds that Tradition is equal with Scripture that is clearly a wrong view, even Jesus told us that, if there is conflicit Scripture is clearly truth and doctrine must stand aside.

[galveston]

I've got 10(?) objections or disagreements. I took out the ones I agreed with at least in a general sense.

I. I can’t agree with this: the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct is scripture. 2 Timothy 3:15-17; I Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1;21
ii. Our sinless life (if I can change this to holy life) no such thing as a sinless life unless you’re baptize at the point of death.
iv. His substitutionary work on the cross (don’t know what this means)
vi. His exhalation to the right hand of God (Not sure what's meant)
III. I disagree with this: The fall of Man as in ‘totally depraved – i.e., per Luther’s definition.
V. I can agree with this if ordinances is in reference to sacraments and includes all seven Catholic sacraments: The Ordinances of Holy Communion and water baptism
VI. I don’t hold to this: we are baptized in the name of God, Son and Holy Spirit – the Holy Spirit doesn’t normally possess body and soul: The Baptism in the Holy Ghost for every believer
VII. This is true in the sense of what is written in scripture, but not necessarily true in every believer in every time: The INITIAL evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost is speaking in unknown tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.
VIII. I disagree if this is ‘once saved always saved’ or ‘I can’t sin after being saved’ :Sanctification of the saved believer from a life of sin to a life of righteousness (a process of time by heeding the Word and being led by the Holy Ghost)
IX. The Catholic Church is the corporate body of Christ - not sure what is meant about 'habitation':The Church is the corporate Body of Christ, habitation of God through the Spirit.
XI. Not normal: Healing for the human body provided in the Atonement.
XIII. Wholly disagree: The Millennial reign of Christ

OK. Now, what Scripture(s) do you give for your disagreements?

(Yes, I can give scriptures for every one of the 16 points if you ask, but it would be better to take one subject at a time to shorten posts.)

[gromitt82]

For Galveston,
I was expecting this dogma to be on the list. Basically, because it has been discussed since a long time ago and by eminent scholars like St. Bonaventure (Doctor Seraphicus) or St. Thomas Aquinas (Doctor of the Church).
These two scholars believed that Mary was completely free from sin but that she was not given this grace at the instant of her conception. Later on, they said the would accept the determination of the Church, which they did.
I often have the feeling that many of us can’t see the forest for the trees. The important question we should have to answer is whether we believe in One Only God and in Jesus Christ, his Son, who died in the Cross, and in Jesus’ personal message to all of us which is written in the Gospels. All the rest, in my opinion of course, is what the Italians say “Peccata minuta” , i.e. not so important. We surely ALL accept that God is Almighty, and therefore nothing is impossible for His Power. I wonder where will all these speculations go when one day we finally realize that there are other living beings in other Planets in this or other Galaxies. To start with the RCC is already starting to consider this possibility as quite likely to happen one of these days…
But let us revert to the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin. I am quoting herewith some of what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say in this respect: Quote:
… John Duns Scotus (1265/66-1308) was one of the most important and influential philosopher-theologians of the High Middle Ages, defended this doctrine. Scotus proposed a solution to the theological problem involved of being able to reconcile the doctrine with that of the universal redemption in Christ, by arguing that Mary's immaculate conception did not remove her from redemption by Christ; rather it was the result of a more perfect redemption that was given to her on account of her special role in history. Furthermore, Scotus said that Mary was redeemed in anticipation of Christ's death on the cross. Duns' arguments remained controversial, however, particularly among the Dominicans, who were willing enough to celebrate Mary's sanctificatio (being made free from sin) but, following the Dominican Thomas Aquinas' arguments, continued to insist that her sanctification could not have occurred at the instant of her conception.
The doctrine itself had been endorsed by the Council of Basel (1431–1449), and by the end of the 15th century was widely professed and taught in many theological faculties. However, the Council of Basel was later held not to have been a true General (or Ecumenical) Council with authority to proclaim dogma; and such was the influence of the Dominicans, and the weight of the arguments of Thomas Aquinas (who had been canonised in 1323 and declared "Doctor Angelicus" of the Church in 1567) that the Council of Trent (1545–63)—which might have been expected to affirm the doctrine—instead declined to take a position; it simply reaffirmed the constitutions of Sixtus IV which had threatened with excommunication anyone on either side of the controversy who accused the others of heresy.
Unquote:
In 1854 Pope Pius IX, with the support of the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic Bishops, whom he had consulted between 1851–1853, promulgated the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus (Latin for "Ineffable God"), which defined ex-cathedra the dogma of the Immaculate Conception:
The papal definition of the dogma declares with absolute certainty and authority that Mary possessed sanctifying grace from the first instant of her existence and was free from the lack of grace caused by the original sin at the beginning of human history.
This dogma is therefore the consequence of a long time mulled over and discussed decision. Not really the result of some divine inspiration (I guess) but rather the corollary resulting from the fact the Virgin Mary being the Mother of Jesus Christ She might have been as well granted by God the Grace of her Immaculate Conception.
But the point is, as far as you are concerned, what difference does it make whether She was or was not granted that Grace. We Catholics cannot prove it, but you cannot prove the contrary either. It is just a matter of believing it or not, which in our case is a must, but not in yours.
For many years the nationality of Christopher Columbus has been under discussion. While some maintain he was born in Genoa, others claim he was Catalan, Portuguese, French and even English.
But what difference does it make? The actual fact is that in 1492 he discovered an island which now is the Dominican Republic and, consequently, one of the first Europeans to discover the American Continent.
For the Roman Catholic Church the dogma of the Immaculate Conception gained additional significance from the reputed apparitions of Our Lady of Lourdes, in 1858. In this little village a 14-year-old girl, Bernardette Soubirous, claimed that a beautiful woman appeared to her and said, "I am the Immaculate Conception ". Many believe the woman to have been the Blessed Virgin Mary.
In any case, the many extraordinary healings that have taken place over there ever since have met with no explanations whatsoever by some eminent doctors who have borne witness of them. My elder son was 5 years old and for 1 year he had been developing what the doctors considered to be a “Bullous Pemphigoid”, a sub epidermal blistering skin disease, very rare in infants, and which in the 50s there was no cure for, in Spain. We took him to Lourdes, and we bathed him in those kinds of bathtubs they have, where water is never changed and yet remains clean, and by the time we got back to Barcelona he was cured. We took him to his dermatoleg, and until he died he was wondering how that was at all possible…!
I would like you to go to this website:
Medjugorje Messages and Apparitions - Our Lady of Medjugorje website - Virgin Mary of <b style="color:black;background-color:#99ff99">Medjugorje</b>
The curious thing is that the town of Medjugorje is located at 25 kms, of Mostar and, during the Bosnia war (1992/95), that area was one of the parts of Bosnia that suffered the most terrible bombings. And yet, not a single shell ever fell in that little town.
This is something – like the Lourdes or the Fatima sites – to be personally seen to start believing in something miraculous. Perhaps, if you can afford it, it would be a nice trip for you and your wife to visit these places…
Then you might understand (without having to give up to your beliefs) why we Catholics have such devotion for the Virgin Mary, though I insist that the relevant matter is that she was Jesus’ Mother, and that you believe, don’t you?
Gromitt82

[classyT]

When Jesus walked on this earth he did not start the church. If you will read in Acts after his resurrection,the disciples thought he was ready to set up his earthy Kingdom. They were clueless about the age of grace, the church, the body of christ, assemblies. COMPLETELY CLUELESS. They were still heading to the temple to worship. It isn't until the Apostle Paul's ministry do we start to understand the "church" or the body of Christ. ( The Lord revealed these things to PAUL)

Why did the Lord start it... THEN? Because he wanted His Word spread to the ends of the earth. It isn't his will that any perish in their sins. He also started it so that we could worship him corporately, he also wanted us to remember him together with the bread and the wine.( symbols of his broken body and shed blood) He wanted us to work together and love one another and show love to others that are not part of the church. He started it so that we might be salt ( for the thirsty) and light ( to those in the dark.) He started the church because he wanted a bride one day... and we are his bride. He started it to teach us of his mercy and grace, love and forgiveness.

The body of Christ or the Church or the Assemblies or whatever you want to call it.. is not a denomination.. ( He didn't start division). It is a people called out for HIS name sake.

[sndbay]

What I did show was proof based on Catholic doctrine. JoeT

The Catholic doctrine? What a shameful thought that you follow a doctrine, and do not even consider the facts as they are written.


There is only one with authority that stands above all.

Matthew 7:28-29 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at HIS doctrine:For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

John 17:16-17 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.



2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.
He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
2 John 9:10-11 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.






Beware! Watch carefully not to fall asleep.

Matthew 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade them]not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

[galveston]

I will not accept the Catholic Encyclopedia when the views given are not backed up by a solid Bible base.

It is as I feared, even when you can agree on a point, you still have to disagree with me because I am not a member of your denomination.

That's sad, and shows why the ecumenical movement will never go anywhere.

[sndbay]

The body of Christ or the Church or the Assemblies or whatever you want to call it..is not a denomination..( He didn't start division). It is a people called out for HIS name sake.

ClassyT, Respect for all that you have spoken, except it is written that Christ said Himself, He did bring division.

Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division

The division was between the doctrine of Christ to follow Him, and the false teaching of the Pharisees who would not deny themselves to follow Christ.

[JoeT777]

Why did the Lord start it.... THEN?

This is why: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post2210169

JoeT

[classyT]

ClassyT, Respect for all that you have spoken, except it is written that Christ said Himself, He did bring division.

Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division

The division was between the doctrine of Christ to follow Him, and the false teaching of the Pharisees who would not deny themselves to follow Christ.

Snd!!

He wasn't talking to the CHURCH.. . no way,, no HOW! Yes! He said he came to divide.. but Snd, he wasn't talking About the church or TO the church.. not about his BRIDE. He wants US in unity... we aren't OBVIOUSLY but that isn't from him. Rightly dividing the word of Truth... if we could do that.. then we could get somewhere in the Body of Christ... Satan loves our divisions.

[classyT]

This is why: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post2210169

JoeT

Grumpy Joe,

I don't think so. :( I admit I haven't read all of it... I skimmed but you mention the CHRUCH is necessary for redemption? Huh? The church can't redeem squat. Only Jesus... I will take a closer look at it when I don't have kids wanting the computer but as usual my friend.. I think we disagree but I love you for trying... :D

[sndbay]

Snd!!!!

He wasn't talking to the CHURCH. ..no way ,,,,no HOW! Yes! he said he came to divide..but Snd, he wasn't talking BOUT the church or TO the church ..not about his BRIDE. He wants US in unity...we aren't OBVIOUSLY but that isn't from him. Rightly dividing the word of Truth....if we could do that..then we could get somewhere in the Body of Christ....Satan loves our divisions.

ClassyT it is true, Christ does not want division within His follwers which would be the fellowship of members within HIS church.

His bride, do you means new Jerusalem?

The idea is that His follower believe in Him and walk in His footsteps. No division in doing it HIS Way because He is the Way.